Yes.. Group like those, which are inactive and continuing with one member must be removed. But It's a little bit of problem in chess.com view, since its a feature available for paid members. But group like Indian tigers must be removed since no one is responsible for that group.

kco is right, to a point. BUT, when someone is trying to find a decent group they have to search through some useless clutter. Some of these "groups" were probably started by newbs who were active for a week. Take out the trash and the place will look more respectable.

I just did a quick count and found 325 groups with only one member and just over 400 with two members. That seems ridiculous, but I can't think of a reason why they should be removed except inactivity. It's really no skin off my nose. It seems like it was just a few months ago that there were almost 1,000 groups and now there are more than 3,500. If I were looking for a group to belong to it's almost certain I would never be aware of the vast majority of the groups. It does seem as though these groups could be categorized as social or political or regional or gender determined or by lifestyle choices or by other distinguishing characteristics. And I think those distinctions might help others to find others who are similar to themselves.

I'm in a lot of these inactive groups. I don't get many alerts from them, so they don't bother me. But every once in a while, someone will join Chess.com who is a fan of ... and finds that group, and I make a new friend.

I'm in a lot of these inactive groups. I don't get many alerts from them, so they don't bother me. But every once in a while, someone will join Chess.com who is a fan of ... and finds that group, and I make a new friend.

Perhaps a better filtering mechanism when searching groups would be a better solution -- with the ability to exclude the groups you mention from your search results it shouldn't matter to you whether they're there or not.

Also many groups are created & continues with 1 Member only. The Super Admin is not capable of convincing people & getting members.

Dont you guys think such groups should be removed from the list?

What is wrong with one man groups? I use a private group to store important stuff and to experiment. This way I don't bother others when doing this. And some small groups are for Admin meeting purposes and can be low in number. I don't see anything wrong with them at all.

hey that's right! i'm starting my own one man group right now! and you can't join it!

I don't think a one person group takes up as much data storage space as so many of the useless comments I've read in various forums. But a one person group always has the potential to become more and an inactive group always has the potential to become active. In the meantime it's no skin off my nose.

What is wrong with one man groups? I use a private group to store important stuff and to experiment. This way I don't bother others when doing this. And some small groups are for Admin meeting purposes and can be low in number. I don't see anything wrong with them at all.

hey that's right! i'm starting my own one man group right now! and you can't join it!

Instead of making your own group just for one, why not use the Blog, isn't that what is there for ?

It depends what you want to do with it. You can't play a vote chess game with a Blog, for example. I've seen inquiries about how to play team chess (2 vs. 2) and setting up two groups for the purpose of playing a vote chess game between them was the best solution.

All of the arguments against small (or low activity) groups goes away with an improved filter mechanism that allows you to avoid seeing them if you don't want to.

Yes of course thegrobe you can't use the blog for the vote chess etc, but I was referring to Karl statment " I use a private group to store important stuff and to experiment. This way I don't bother others when doing this.